 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| State v. Matlock, A06-1385,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, October 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred by admitting evidence of defendant's other crimes, Minn. R. Evid. 404(b), due to lack of persuasive nexus that aided in establishing identity, the irrelevance of the intent factor, and the opportunity for prejudice. Defendant had to give permission for jury instruction regarding his choice not to testify, Minn. Stat. § 611.11.
|
|||||
| State v. Papineau, A06-1505,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, October 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a DWI case, denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence allegedly seized in violation of Minn. Const. art. I, § 10 was proper as the reasonable person in defendant's position would not have concluded that she was not free to leave and, thus, no seizure occurred.
|
|||||
| State v. Shriner, A07-181,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, October 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a DWI and criminal vehicular operation case, because no extenuating circumstance other than the evanescent quality of alcohol was present, the district court did not err in holding that the officer should have obtained the driver's consent or obtain a warrant pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 169A.52 before having the driver's blood drawn.
|
|||||
| Thompson v. Thompson, A06-1453,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, October 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a husband's motion to reopen a judgment and decree under Minn. Stat. § 518.145, subd. 2(3) as the record supported its finding that the wife did not commit fraud on the court. The husband failed to establish good cause for an evidentiary hearing under Minn. Stat. § 518.145, subd. 2(5).
|
|||||
| Weeks v. Weeks, A06-2147,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MINNESOTA, October 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of a mother's motion to modify the father's child support obligation was proper pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 518.64, subd. 2 because there was not a substantial change in circumstances that rendered the original support order unreasonable and unfair.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
